[2026:RJ-JP:5591]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 473/2025 Arvind Sharma S/o Sh. Sitaram Sharma, R/o Pradhano Ki Dhani, Mansharampura, Jaipur.

----Accused-Petitioner Versus

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Public Prosecutor.

----Respondent

2. Yogesh Soni S/o Shree Subhash Chand Soni, Age 18 Years, R/o 92 Shivkumari Jhotwara, Jaipur.

----Complainant-Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Anirudh Singh Rathore, Adv. For Mr. Deepak Chauhan, Adv.

For Respondent(s) : Mr. Amit Punia, Addl. GA For Complainant(s) : Ms. Ananya Gupta, Adv.

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BHUWAN GOYAL

Order

06/02/2026

1 ;kph dh vksj ls mDr ,dyihB vkijkf/kd fofo/k ;kfpdk varxZr /kkjk 528 Hkkjrh; ukxfjd lqj{kk lafgrk] izFke lpw uk fjiksVZ l[a ;k 469@2024 iqfyl Fkkuk&fo|k/kj uxj] ftyk& t;iqj 'kgj¼mRrj½] vijk/k vra xZr /kkjk 115¼2½] 126¼2½] 189¼2½ Hkkjrh; U;k; lafgrk ,oa mlls mn~Hkwr leLr dk;Zokgh dks i{kdkjku ds e/; ijLij jkthukek gksus ds vk/kkj ij jí ,oa vikLr fd, tkus dh izkFkZuk ds lkFk izLrqr dh xbZ gSA

2 Fkkukf/kdkjh iqfyl Fkkuk fo|k/kj uxj] t;iqj mRrj }kjk izdj.k la[;k 469@2024 esa izLrqr rF;kRed fjiksVZ fnukafdr 02-01-2026 dks fjdkWMZ ij fy;k x;kA

3 ;kph&vfHk;qDr rFkk ifjoknh ;ksxs'k ,oa vkgr yksdsanz O;fDrxr :i ls vius vf/koDrkx.k lfgr vkt U;k;ky; esa mifLFkr gSa rFkk muds vf/koDrkx.k dk la;qDr :i ls ;g dFku gS fd i{kdkjksa ds e/; yksd vnkyr dh Hkkouk ls jkthukek gks pqdk gS tks ,usDlj&2 ds :i esa i=koyh ij izLrqr gS] mudk ;g Hkh dFku gS fd muesa vkil esa lkSgknZiw.kZ laca/k gS] muds }kjk iqfyl Fkkuk fo|k/kj uxj t;iqj mRrj esa U;k;ky; ds vkns'k ls mifLFkr gksdj i{kdkjksa esa jkthukek gksus ckcr~ foys[k izLrqr dj fn;k gS] i{kdkjksa esa vkil esa jkthukek gks pqdk gS] vr% jkthukes ds vk/kkj ij /kkjk 528 Hkkjrh; ukxfjd lqj{kk lafgrk ds rgr gLrxr izFke lpw uk fjiksVZ l[a ;k 469@2024 ,oa mlls mn~Hkwr leLr dk;Zokgh jn~n ,oa vikLr fd, tkus dh izkFkZuk dhA

4 fo}ku vfrfjDr jktdh; vf/koDrk us fof/k&lEer mfpr vkns'k ikfjr fd;s tkus dk fuosnu fd;kA

5 ekuuh; mPpre U;k;ky; }kjk ikfjr fu.kZ; Gian Singh Vs.

esa ;g izfrikfnr State of Punjab[(2012) 10 SCC 303]

fd;k x;k gS fd ''Quashing of offence or criminal proceedings on the ground of settlement between an offender and victim is not the same thing as compounding of offence. They are different and not interchangeable. Strictly speaking, the power of compounding of offences given to a court under Section 320 is materially different from the quashing of criminal proceedings by the High Court in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction. In compounding of offences, power of a criminal court is circumscribed by the provisions contained in Section 320 and the court is guided solely and squarely thereby while, on the other hand, the formation of opinion by the High Court for quashing a criminal offence or criminal proceeding or criminal complaint is guided by the material on record as to whether the ends of justice would justify such exercise of power although the ultimate consequence may be acquittal or dismissal of indictment.''

Ramgopal Vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh reported in [(2022) 14 SCC 531]

''12.The High Court, therefore, having re- gard to the nature of the offence and the fact that parties have amicably settled their dispute and the victim has willingly consented to the nullification of criminal proceedings, can quash such proceedings in exercise of its inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C., even if the offences are noncompoundable.''

Jasmair Singh Vs. State of Haryana [(2022) 9 SCC 73]

''while dealing with the quashment of matrimonial dispute, held that since parties buried hatched and decided to give quietus to proceedings which were lodged inter se, hence going by law declared in Gian Singh V. State of Punjab & Anr. reported in [(2012) 10 SCC 303] held that case was eminently suitable to be considered for exercise of jurisdiction under Section 482 Crpc for quashment of criminal proceed-

ings.''

6 izLrqr ekeys esa mDr U;kf;d n`"Vkra ksa esa izfrikfnr fl)karksa ds ifjizs{; esa ,o